Podcasts about East Africa

Dr. Sheikh Faiyaz Jaffer is the Research Scholar for the Islamic Center at New York University and an Associate Chaplain for the Center of Global & Spiritual Life at NYU.  In addition, he is currently a doctoral candidate at NYU Steinhardt's School of Education. Sheikh Faiyaz attained an MA degree in Islamic Studies (UK), with a concentration on early Islamic history, after his undergraduate degree from SUNY Stony Brook University in Political Science and Religious Studies.  He has had his research published by academic journals. In pursuing the classical course of Islamic education, Faiyaz studied in the Seminary of Karbala, Iraq, one of the most prominent centers for Islamic learning. As a faith leader and social activist, Faiyaz Jaffer has lectured at various universities, seminars, and workshops across the United States, Canada, Europe, East Africa, and the Middle East. Due to the political and social climate, he has been making strides in the greater New York area by taking part in a number of interfaith seminars and discussions in the aspiration of increasing dialogue with various faith leaders. His outreach efforts have allowed him to be featured in some of the country's most prominent media outlets. As a highly sought-after lecturer and religious leader, Faiyaz regularly leads prayer services and delivers sermons across North America.

Near the end of Japan's "Warring States" period a remarkable visitor arrived in the country with a group of European Jesuit missionaries. He was a soldier originally from East Africa acting as a bodyguard for the ranking Jesuit in Japan. The Japanese would come to know this man as Yasuke and through a surprising series of events he would go on to become the first non-Japanese person to be recognized as a Samurai. Unfortunately, sources concerning the life of Yasuke are few. With only a handful of primary sources and a few colorful legends how much can we know for sure about the African Samurai? Tune-in and find out how Indian slave-soldiers, brawling saints, and the Wu-Tang Clan all play a role in the story.   

This week: What does it mean when people say “revolution”? For these purposes, which are pretty narrow and entirely of my own invention, I don't mean some single moment in time, unless it was a bellwether for something bigger. And I don't mean the revolutions that have necessarily most directly impacted me. When I think “revolution” I imagine a building up of…something…that affected most people directly or indirectly, so that's the threshold I'll use here. This list is in no way comprehensive, I'm a generalist bonehead who definitely missed some significant items. I am 40, though I feel like I'm 99, so anyways I'm going to use 1982 as my starting point. YMMV. INI is about looking forward, to understanding where we are and where we might be going, so we can build a better today and tomorrow for everyone. But to do so, it's helpful to look back a little bit to understand how we got here, what's underway, and what might be brewing, for better or worse. Because the more we have our eyes on these currents, the more we can strike at the root to influence them. Here's What You Can Do:⚡️ I love donating to DonorsChoose so much. Teachers need so much more support and should never have to front the cost of essential supplies. Buy some books or crayons or maps or even a 3D printer!⚡️ Understand where your power is coming from, live, like right now, with Electricity Maps.⚡️ From the southern border to Ukraine, East Africa, and Palestine, Doctors Without Borders provides medical humanitarian assistance to folks who need it the most. Setup a new monthly donate now.⚡️ Volunteer to text or call with the Environmental Voter Project, an incredibly effective movement to identify millions of non-voting environmentalists and turns them into consistent votersNews RoundupHealth & MedicineGenes from the mother shape a baby's microbiomeA bunch of states are suing companies over insulin prices

Welcome to another episode of Ideas Untrapped. My guest today is Charlie Robertson, who is the chief economist of Renaissance Capital - a global investment bank - and in this episode we talked about the subject of Charlie's new book, "The Time-Travelling Economist''. The book explores the connection between education, electricity, and fertility to economic development. The thrust of the book's argument is that no poor country can escape poverty without education, and that electricity is an important factor for investors looking to build businesses. It also explains that a low fertility rate helps to increase household savings. Charlie argues, with a lot of data and historical parallels, that countries need at least a 70-80% adult literacy rate (defined as being able to read and write four sentences in any language) and cheap electricity (an average of 300 - 500 kWh per capita) in order to industrialize and grow their economies rapidly. Small(er) families (3 children per woman) mean households are able to save more money, which can improve domestic investments by lowering interest rates - otherwise countries may repeatedly stumble into debt crises. We also discussed how increasing education can lead to higher domestic wages, but that this is usually offset by a large increase in the working-age population - and other interesting implications of Charlie's argument.TRANSCRIPTTobi;The usual place I would start with is what inspired you to write it. You mentioned in the book that it was an IMF paper that sort of started your curiosity about the relationship between education, electricity, fertility, and economic development. Generally. So, what was the Eureka moment?Charlie;Yeah, the eureka moment actually came in Kenya, um, because I'd already done a lot of work showing how important education was. It's the most important, no country escapes poverty without education. So I'd already made that clear and there wasn't much debate about that. Perhaps there was a debate about why some countries have gone faster than others, but there wasn't much debate about that. The second thing I was very clear on was electricity, which kept on coming up in meetings across Sub-Saharan Africa, Pakistan, [at] a number of countries, people kept on talking about the importance of electricity. But the eureka moment came when somebody pointed out to me that Kenya, where I was at the time, couldn't afford to build huge excess capacity of electricity, which I was arguing you need to have. You need to have too much electricity, so that it's cheap and it's reliable.And then investors come in and say, "great! I've got cheap educated labour, and I've got cheap reliable electricity. I've got the human capital and the power I need, that then enables me to invest and build a business here." And the question then was, well, why was it so expensive in Kenya but so cheap in China? Why was the cost of borrowing so high in Nigeria but so cheap in Morocco or Mauritius? And when I was trying to work out where did the savings come from in China, uh, well I was looking globally, but China's the best example of economic success and development success we've seen in the last 50 years. Over half the answer came from this IMF paper saying, actually it came from their low fertility rate. That's over half of the rise in household savings, which are massive in China, came about because the fertility rate had fallen so dramatically.And I then thought, could this possibly be true for other countries as well? Could this help explain why interest rates are so high in Nigeria or Kenya and so low elsewhere? And the answer is yes. So this book, The Time Travelling Economist is bringing all of these three things together - the fertility rate, the education rate, and electricity - to say not just how countries develop, cause I think I've answered that, but when they develop. Because once we know those three factors are key, we can then work out the when. Not just in the past [of] countries, but also in the future. Um, so that's where this came from.Tobi;I mean, we're going to be talking about each of those factors over the course of this conversation, but another question...some would say boring question, but I know how development economists and economists generally always try to defend their turf, you know, around issues like these. So, has anybody like taking you to task on the causal link between these three factors and development? And how would you defend yourself against that were it to be asked?Charlie;I haven't found anyone yet who's argued successfully against these points. Um, the closest criticism I get, and just to say, you know, this book came about off the back of three key reports I did in 2017 on education, 2018 on electricity, and 2019 on fertility and savings. So I've now been talking about these ideas for three to five years. The book only came out in July, 2022, bringing them all together. But in five years I haven't had pushback other than people ask, "is it not correlated?" You know, "is it not perhaps economic growth leads fertility declines or boosts savings?" And I think I show really clearly in the data that "no." Um, the fertility declines give us the growth. You don't get growth without adult literacy of at least 40%, you certainly don't get industrialization until literacy is at 70 to 80.So, you know, I'm looking at the data and I think it's pretty crystal clear that you've gotta get these other things right first before your economy can take off. And I can't find any counter-examples. Except, I mean there's the inevitable few, those countries like Qatar or Kuwait with huge amounts of energy exports per capita or diamonds in Botswana's case. And there you don't have to get everything right before you get wealthier because you just happen to be lucky to have huge amounts of energy exports per person and a very small population. But they are a bit of an exception. I think you could probably argue that they do grow first before they get everything else right. But for the vast majority of the planet and all countries in history, it's the other way around. You gotta get education, power, fertility rates in the right place to take off.Tobi;So I mean, getting into the weeds, let's look at education first. Before your book, personally for me, and I should say what I really like about your book is, it's well written, it's an interesting read. It comes across as a bit less analytical, which is what you get from the standard development literature, you know, and I think that's partly because you are writing about a lot of the countries that you have also worked in and interacted with a lot of these factors. So it really gives it a first-hand experience kind of narrative. So I like that very much. So prior to your book, if someone were to ask me about the relationship between education and economic development or catch-up growth, generally, the reference usually goes to Studwell's big claim, Joe Studwell, that: Yeah. You don't really need a super high level of education metrics for a country to industrialize because the standard explanation is that how a relatively poor country starts industrializing is from the low-skill, uh, labour-intensive, low-skill manufacturing jobs, that you don't need a high level of education and skill for you to be able to do that.So what I wanna work out here is what is the transmission mechanism between adult literacy and industrialization the way you've, like, clearly analyzed in your book?Charlie;Well, thank you very much for saying it was nicely written, I appreciate that. I wanted to try and make it as accessible as possible. Yeah, I think Joe Studwell's books are really good and I think he's right that you don't need a high level of education to do that first step out of rural poverty, subsistence farming into a textile mill. I think what's interesting is how many people writing about development forget how important just adult literacy actually is, because we've taken [it] so much for granted. So Adam Smith, who wrote The Wealth of Nations, the father of economics back in the 18th century in Scotland, he didn't make a big deal about adult literacy driving growth. And more recently, you know, people like Dani Rodrik have echoed exactly that saying you don't need any great education to work in a textile mill. You just need to be dextrous with your fingers. Which is almost exactly actually what Adam Smith said 250 years ago. And I was sympathetic to that, but I then kept on seeing in the data, well, first of all, I found this theory written in the sixties that said that no country has industrialized even to that first basic level of textiles without adult literacy being about 70 to 80% of the population. Which means basically all adults, all men, plus well over half the female population as well. And this was the theory written in the sixties and when I looked at the data, it was proven right and I couldn't quite understand why - if you just need dextrous fingers to work in a textile mill, why would there be that link? And I ended up talking to a guy who ran Levi's factories in Asia in the 1980s and he said, “Charlie, just think about it.”You've got this box of Levi's jeans coming down the conveyor belt. Do you put that box onto the truck labelled United States or that truck labelled Europe for export? And if you can't read and write, you won't even get that right. So the adult literacy thing I think is overlooked. People are focusing on secondary school, high school education, how much [many] university graduates a country needs and they do need graduates too. But until you get to that 70 to 80% adult literacy, textile mills don't go to a country. And we can see that they did go to China in the nineties when they got to adult literacy of 70%. They are in Southeast Asia. They're in Bangladesh since education hit about 70 to 80% in the last 10 to 15 years. But they're not big in sub-Saharan Africa, or at least in parts of Nigeria or the Sahel or West Africa because the education levels still aren't there yet. So, you know, I looked as far back as I could go to the 19th century and even the first non-European country to take off, Japan, had an adult literacy rate of about 70% by 1900 and 20 years later, they had a thriving textile industry. The education always comes first. And Korea copied that Japan model in the 1950s and sixties, Taiwan, Hong Kong, all the rest [of] Southeast Asia's followed. Now, South Asia's doing it and luckily it's spreading across Africa too. But the adult literacy is the first essential step.Tobi;One possible objection. And I haven't seen this anywhere, but I couldn't really get it out of my mind while I was reading that part of the book is that some will argue that increasing education also increases domestic wages and that is really a problem for industrializing. And, if I recall, one particular point that the anonymous economic historian on Twitter, Pseudoerasmus, made particularly about Asia, is they were able to combine a very high adult literacy rate - a measure which you use is completion of secondary education…Charlie;Yeah.Tobi;With very unusually low domestic wages. What role do wages play in your analysis?Charlie;I think that's the norm actually. It connects to the fertility thing. And I'm not sure if you want to jump there just yet, but what tends to happen when you've educated your population is that the fertility rate drops a lot. And when that happens, the number of people who have to stay at home looking after 5, 6, 7 children goes down a lot too. Women can go into the workforce and of course cause you've got the education, right? Those women are educated so they can join the industrial workforce as well. So very roughly, if we say there's a hundred people in Nigeria, 50 kids and 50 adults, let's say 25 of the adults have to be staying at home to look after 50 kids, you're talking 25% of the population can go out and work of the overall population. You go to Asia today and it's more like 70% adults, say 30% of kids.So you need maybe 15% of adults to stay at home. And you end up with something like 85% of the whole population can go out to work instead of 25%. Now, the consequence of that is a massive rise in the working-age population. And I think that that keeps industrial wages low for a few generations, in fact. Or at least three decades. Probably 40 years, where the education's come through, the fertility rates come down, you've got this huge excess supply of labour, which is then joining the industrial workforce and getting jobs. But because there keeps on being more people joining that workforce, it keeps wages relatively low. Now, what eventually happens then after a few decades is that that big increase in the workforce stops increasing as fast. We've seen this in China in the last 20 years. So, 20 years ago China's per capita GDP was about fifteen hundred dollars, $1,500.Whereas now, now the population has stopped growing. Working age population's shrinking. It's gone up to over $11,500. It's gone up tenfold. So the big reward for industrialization comes later. And we had this in Europe of course in the 19th century, you know, wages were pretty awful and industrial working was pretty awful experience in the 19th century. I mean it paid slightly better than rural subsistence farming, which is why people came to the cities. But London was a horrible place for the vast majority of people. And the industrial workhouses were terrible places as well. And that lasted for generations. It's only when that big population, kind of, boom stories started to shift that labour eventually got any bargaining power. Cause when there was too much labour coming into the market, they had no bargaining power with the factory owners. It wasn't until the 1870s that the trade unions became legal in, say, the United States. Because up till then, you know, "you join a union, I fire you," you know, could be what the factory owner would say in the United States, cause there's always gonna be another person I can employ. But once the workforce starts to gain a bit of bargaining power, cause it's not expanding quite so fast, then finally wages start to pick up. So I think what's happened in Asia is pretty normal and will probably be the experience that we've seen across Africa as well.Tobi;Inevitably this will take us into what it means to be educated, really. Because a lot of countries, I mean it's pretty much standard - they say, Oh yeah, we want invest in education. Um, we know it is important for human capital. We know how important it is to have an educated population and all that. You talked about some data challenges also for some countries in your book. So what I wanna ask here is what exactly does it mean to be educated in the sense that you are talking about in the book?Charlie;Yeah, this is a really fair question. Why am I talking about adult literacy? The definition is can you read and write four sentences in any language? Sentences like "farming is hard work." So it's not a very high threshold and I wouldn't argue, I don't think you would, that it's highly educated. It's just educated enough to put that box of jeans onto the right truck when it's going to America or Europe. But all that's doing then is taking your country's per capita GDP from your per person kind of wealth from say $500 a year, a thousand dollars a year to the kind of two, $3,000 a year level. It doesn't mean you've got the education levels you need to get to the $10,000 per capita GDP level growth or 20 or 50 or even a hundred. Um, to get to the 10,000 level, I think you probably need very good secondary school education as well.And to get to the $20,000 per capital GDP level, you're talking a lot of graduates coming out of university and you need to have that education then spreading throughout the population, both broadening and deeper education as well. And that is a process that takes decades. I mean I focused quite a bit on Korea because it was one of the most successful models and then China came along and did it even faster. But what Korea prioritized in the 1950s was getting that adult literacy rate from 35% or so, too low even to grow sustainably, to about 90% they said by 1960. So in about 10 or 15 years they got it from 35 to 90 and that was enough then to have textile mills do really well in the 1960s and they became a manufacturing country, an industrialized country by the early 1970s.But already then the government said, right, we need more engineers, we need graduates coming out of university to do heavy industry, to do cars, shipbuilding. But Korea had no cars or shipbuilding at the time, nothing significant. So they were changing the university focus from, kind of, the arts or law towards engineering and the sciences before they had the economic sectors that they were trying to promote. And then about 10 to 20 years later, all these graduates were then in the economy and ready to start up companies like Deawoo, Hyundai, Kia, Samsung. And they started small obviously in the 1980s and early nineties. But this kind of sequential thinking about it meant that Korea kept on having the right human capital at every stage of development. So my book's trying to focus on, you know, why hasn't Pakistan got all the textile factories?Why does Bangladesh have them? Why doesn't Nigeria have them? Why does Vietnam have them? And this is saying first you've gotta get that sequencing right of everybody ideally being literate, everybody having had school up to 11 years old and come out with a good standard of education. On the quality issue you just raised, the problem here is a couple of things. So I mean firstly people sometimes just make up the data and say, yes, my population is literate when it's not. But secondly, when you try and kind of shoehorn a hundred kids into one class to say, you know, they're all going to school now, but you've only got one teacher, you are not coming out with a good education at all. You might not even be coming out literate at all. So that, you know, I'm also trying to warn that governments can't do this on the cheap. Or not completely. They have to take it seriously and say, look, we actually need to make sure everyone really is coming out able to read and write. It's not just trying to tick a box to say everyone's at school.Tobi;Hopefully, we'll circle back to policy questions around this later. Let's talk briefly about electricity, which as you say, once you start investigating these factors, then you start teasing out what's what for each country. And the way you introduce that is [that] there are some countries with very high adult literacy rates but still weren't getting the benefits - like [the] Philippines, which was your example in the book. And it turns out what was missing in that particular case was electricity generation. But first I want you to make one distinction for me quite quickly. Cause it's funny, I was reading David Pilling's brief coverage of your book in the FT and he talked about the fertility part being controversial and I wonder that people miss the obvious controversy in electricity, but we'll get to that. So, now, is it really about investment in electricity that is often missing in countries that can't quite manage to get it right or the way their electricity market is structured? I know you are quite familiar with Nigeria and it's really a big, big, big debate that we've been having for, I don't know, like 20 years. So, some people will say you need very large upfront investment, possibly by the government, in generating capacity transmission, machinery and co. We argue, oh no, you really need to restructure the electricity market first. People have to pay for what they use. You need to restructure the tariff system, blah blah blah, blah, blah. What are your thoughts?Charlie;Um, big issues. And there is a debate. There're so many debates about this actually. There's the debate about whether you need a big national grid, big national generation and distribution companies or whether you can have localized electricity. Um, you are getting a couple of points though that I think it's easier to say some answers to. And one of them was to do with getting people to actually pay their bills. Certainly a problem in Nigeria, apparently, you know, discos will say that because there hasn't been good metering and despite privatization that those meters have not been rolled out. I know the government's promising to roll it out to all 10 million account holders now, but because there hasn't been metering, you can't charge necessarily the fair price for the amount of electricity people have used. So then people don't wanna pay. So then the discos are losing money, then they can't pay the generators and this then becomes a problem.And I think there is a case to say that if the generators can sell some power directly to some big companies, that could be one way around part of the problem. So in a place like Lagos, very similar to the Philippines in the 20th century, good educated population just held back by a lack of cheap reliable power. You know, I think if Lagos could have its own electricity story, it would be a phenomenally successful economy. It should be over the next three or four decades. So there is a case about how you structure this. But I found two or three things interesting when I was looking into this issue in 2018. And the first was just clarifying that it really is electricity that people need more than say transport infrastructure. You know, this is a survey the world bank had done and the only countries where they've said transport infrastructure was the bigger problem was countries where there wasn't an electricity problem because there's so much of it.So countries, where there's a load of electricity, say yes we need more transport infrastructure, but everybody else says we have to have the electricity first. So then it's a question of how do you roll that out in a way that makes money and supports development? And there is a... I think, a problem at the moment with well-meaning policies from people like the United Nations or the African Development Bank saying everybody should have access to electricity. But my point in the book is, and Adam Smith said the same thing in the 18th century, you want your infrastructure to be making money not losing money. You need to make sure that if you're going to supply people with a road or a bridge or electricity, that they can pay for it. And if you start building stuff that loses you money because people can't pay their bills, then you'll end up with an uneconomic electricity system which can't function properly and can't give industry what it needs.And what I try to emphasize in this is that every country from America and France in the 1920s to Turkey in the 1960s or seventies to Korea in the 1970s, every country has said, okay, let's make sure we've got electricity for industry first. Profitable, makes money, and then households over time? Yeah, okay, we'll connect them over time, but only when they can start affording to pay for electricity. It's not another subsidy that governments can't afford, we just can't do that. [This] is what every other country's done. But at the moment I do see this pressure for electricity systems to try and roll out universal access and so, in places like Kenya that's putting the whole electricity system under financial pressure because it's hurting their profits. And if you're trying to roll out cheap electricity to households, well how do you pay for that?Well, government subsidies partly, but the other way to pay for it is to make industry pay a high price. But if you're making industry pay a high price industry won't come. They'll go to Asia; where they get a low price for electricity. They're not going to go to somewhere that's got a high price. Cause no company's gonna say, I just wanna subsidize households getting electricity. Companies are coming to build stuff in countries because they'll make a good profit from doing so. So I think you've raised a number of issues there, you know, is localized electricity good, and so on? You know, what should you be prioritizing first - industry or households? And there's a whole host of issues. But I hope I've answered that.Tobi;Actually, that's the controversy I was referring to at the beginning of that question because the background that is, it'll be a very, very tough sell in the current political climate, for example in Nigeria, for any person aspiring to public office to make this argument that you have to power industry first. What it's going to sound like is: you are just trying to prioritize the rich and trying to exclude some people from what, like you said, has come to be framed as a universal basic right. You talk to a lot of small businesses, even individuals, like you mentioned with the World Bank Survey, the importance of electricity is so paramount on everybody's mind that if there's stable electricity, I can start X and Y businesses. I could make money and, I mean, no one needs the government for anything else. Just give us electricity.Charlie;Yeah.Tobi;So my point is practically… thinking about this practically, how do you think a sensible government that is not trying to bankrupt itself prematurely can manage this situation?Charlie;Well, I think it's hard work. Um, how did the Koreans do it in the sixties or the seventies or the eighties? They gave you no right to protest - military government. How did the communists do so well at getting this industry first, households later? How did they get it right in China or Russia? Same thing. You've got no rights to protest. "Your interests don't matter, we're thinking 10 to 20 years ahead how to make our country better off and how to make everyone better off. So you suffer now because we are gonna prioritize business." So that is one model. I'm not recommending it, I'm just saying it is a model that can be done. The other way is to allow it to be done by the private sector. And if you let the private sector roll out electricity, they will not supply electricity to people who won't pay their bills.And that is the story that you saw in western Europe, it's the story you saw in the States, and to some extent you're seeing actually in Kenya. There's quite an interesting company there called M-KOPA. And M-KOPA will sell you, well, they'll lend you, they'll lease you, a solar panel, a little one that you can put on your - actually, a friend of mine was showing it to me the other day in Uganda...they put it on the straw roof of the mud hut and that solar panel, you pay a monthly fee and after about 18 months you've paid for the panel, you've also got energy during that time enough to supply a mobile phone and so on, lights a little bit, and then it's yours and that's effectively privatizing that rural distribution story. But I think the difficulty is that politicians find it really hard to do this.And part of what I'm writing about in the book is how really hard it is for governments in a country with no savings, big population growth, to constantly meet all of the different demands. With huge population growth you're having to build new schools all the time, you have to hire even more teachers all the time. You've got population pressure, maybe, causing clashes over agricultural land like the Fulani herdsman in Central Nigeria, Northern Nigeria as well. And all of these pressures are on you all of the time. And there's constant demand to spend more on bridges, on hospitals, on education, on security. And what you can't afford to be doing is making a loss. And so I think what politicians need to do is say, we've gotta sequence this right. The same thing as with education. It's no good having a million university graduates if a country isn't literate enough to have an industrial base, you've gotta have the literacy first.And equally, it's no good having electricity rolled out to every household when there are no factories for people to go and get the jobs they need to be able to pay the electricity bill. And it's not easy. I, I totally understand it's not an easy situation for anyone to be in. The difficulty is [that] because it's not easy, too many political leaders will take what appears to be the easy option of saying, "I tell you what, let's just go and borrow a load of dollars offshore. Nigeria's going to go and issue a lot of dollar debt and we'll use that to try and sort these problems out." Kenya's done the same, Ghana's done the same, Pakistan's done the same. And the risk then is that you end up in default situations. So that feeds into one of the other chapters in the book as well.But I think it's very difficult. I think realistically governments need to say, what can we do here? And this is how long it's going to take. And it's going to be not a five-year story, it's going be a 20-year story, a 30-year story to get it right. And people, sadly, need to be patient, which is hard; when for generations people have been waiting for things to get much, much better and little progress has been made, relatively little progress has been made compared to Asia and that causes a lot of political frustration. I think.Tobi;I mean, speaking about Asia and I mean your point about taking away the right to protest, I think Africa and Nigeria sort of missed that window when we had military governments everywhere. So, uh, let me give you one experience I've had in trying to discuss your book with friends. So I get two reactions to the fertility section.It's almost automatic, you know, when you discuss fertility being at a certain level and I try to, you know, successfully argue your point, you get two strands of reactions in my experience, one goes immediately to the China issue - the one-child policy; that, "oh, so are you trying to say we should do what China did?" The other slightly more technical objection I get goes to the relationship between population growth and economic growth that is quite pervasive in the growth literature. Did you also experience that while writing the book and debating with colleagues?Charlie;Now I'll take each point in turn. Um, the China one-child policy story helps explain this massive rise in Chinese savings and then their very strong growth. What I'm trying to show in the book, of course, is that every rich country has seen a fertility decline. And what I'm arguing is probably the right sort of level for countries to aim for is about two to three kids on average. I don't care if people have five kids or one kid, it's just as a country the average of two to three kids is consistent with a very high, well, a big jump in the level of sayings. And with those savings, you can then industrialize and grow, and grow fast. Um, China I think actually made a mistake. I think China got it wrong by going for the one-child policy because they kind of turbocharged that story, that story that every rich country has got, of lower fertility, it took a really long time in Europe. I mean it took a really, really long time in Europe and that's why Europe had the slowest growth of any industrial revolution. It was done faster by the communism [they had] in Russia and they did faster growth and we've done even faster in China. But the consequence of this one-child policy and what the Chinese have discovered is it's bloody hard to get the fertility rate back up again once you've had one kid. I was talking to a Chinese professor on a plane back from Asia once and she was saying all of her friends, they can't get married, they can't stay married. They get married and they can't stay married because they're all used to being a one-child kind of princess or prince in the family who gets everything they want and then they try married life and they discover as you might well know, that you never get everything you want in a marriage, and you have to compromise.And it's certainly created a problem now that China can't get the kids, they can't raise the fertility level and it's not just China that's discovered that once you've got a low fertility rate, too low, I think of one, you have a problem raising it. Again, Italy's had the same problem, Iran, uh, Russia. So I think China did it too fast. And you certainly don't need to do it and loads of other countries show you that just aiming for that two to three kids figure really helps your economy and gets you onto the path to being middle-income and then a rich country. So I don't think you need to do the China one child. No. Um, the second issue, the population growth versus economic growth. What I show, what we did in this was we looked back at every country's growth rate since 1960 and I compared the per capita GDP growth, the per personal growth of an economy, it's the best way to measure how well an economy itself is really doing. And I compared that growth rate against the share of adults to kids that I was talking to you about a little earlier.Tobi;Yeah.Charlie;And where it's 50-50 roughly, between adults and kids, per capita GDP grows at 1% and that was the story of Asia in the sixties and seventies. It's still the story for a good number of countries including Nigeria today. So per capita GDP growth is about 1% when half your population can't work because they're kids. But once you get two-thirds of the population being adults, your average per capita growth in lower-income countries by half of America's wealth level, so not even lower-income, lower or middle-income countries, your per capita growth, and it averages three to 5% a year. So the structure of your population tells you what your per capita GDP growth is. So it's just... I can't see that there's any other way to explain this than you've gotta get that fertility rate down first before you can start to get the high per capita GDP growth. Um, and it's connected to the savings, of course; cause once you've got two kids instead of six, you're saving money in the bank, the bank starts to have more cash to lend out. There's more money for lending for investment. The government can borrow more cheaply so it can build infrastructure, roads and rail, electricity and cheap electricity cause interest rates are low cause the savings are high because most families are able to put some money aside at the end of the week. But that doesn't happen when 50% of the population are kids. They're not earning any money, they're not saving anything and the poor parents are trying to manage to feed five, six kids on average. You know, they've got nothing left at the end of the week to put into a bank.So the bank's got no cash. So interest rates are really high cause there's no money in the bank. Um, so money's really expensive. So the government can't afford to invest in infrastructure and if it does build electricity it has to charge a lot of money cause it's having to pay a lot of interest on the debt it's taken on. So to me, I've yet to find someone demolish the argument and uh, you know, it could happen.Tobi;Yeah.Charlie;But so far it seems you've got to get the fertility rate down first if you want to get fast growth. Now if you don't want to grow at three, four, 5% a year, you could do it really slowly like Europe did and you grow at say, one and a half, two, eventually, you get from European farming in 1800 to factories that are producing not great stuff by 1900, a hundred years later. But when I'm looking at Nigeria today, I don't want Nigeria to be waiting a hundred years to be doing what Europe took a hundred years to do. I also don't think the Chinese model of it taking 30 years, 20, 30 years but then having a population problem of being too old, I don't think that's the right solution either. But there's somewhere in between. At the moment though, Nigeria's on that long growth story, it's not yet ready for the faster growth storyTobi;On the China question, um, thinking about your answer there, is extremely low fertility or what they say "fertility below the replacement rate" a feature of the kind of explosive growth 30, 35, 40-year trajectory that we've seen in Asia. Because if you look at Korea, Korea even have worse demographic numbers than China and there was no draconian population policy, but it's kind of gone through this explosive growth phase that is even faster and bigger than China's.Charlie;Well, it's been going on for longer. So what the Koreans got right was they raised their adult literacy rate to, you know, they said about 90% by 1960. China, despite being communist and communists tend to say they really appreciate education, didn't get to over 70% literacy until 1990, sometime in the early 1990s, which is 25, 35 years later than Korea. Uh, so Korea was already booming in 1970 at a time when China was having the catastrophic mistakes of the cultural revolution and really bad growth and people feared mass famine. Well many, many did die in China in the sixties. So what I would argue is that Korea had a slower fertility decline and the growth rates were not as fast as China's but they've been growing for 50, 60 years already. So Korea's two to three times richer than China is today. But as you say, they're so ageing that they're gonna be the oldest country in the world by 2030.And what's gonna get interesting then, and I can't really answer this in the book cause we haven't seen it yet, but what's interesting about Korea and we're going to have to watch it carefully, is that you are going to end up with, not 70% adults and 30% kids, it'll be less and less working-age adults, maybe 60%, I dunno maybe eventually 50% and it'll be 50% kids and old age pensioners who can't work. And my guess is that Korean growth is going to slow back to about the 1% per capita growth that Nigeria's got at the moment because Korea's going to be too old. You know, and that's not something that I think people should be thinking about or worrying about. [People should be thinking about] Pakistan, East Africa, Southern Africa, West Africa at the moment. It's [Korea is] just not a...you know, that's a problem to worry about in 50, 60 years. But it is going to be interesting to watch what does happen to growth in really old countries. Um, can pensioners actually still do work? You know, maybe they end up retiring at 70 or 75 or 80, I dunno. It's gonna be quite interesting to see.Tobi;So I mean the question then is, uh, for countries that have fertility rates that are higher than what you described in the book.Charlie;Yeah.Tobi;It then becomes how do we get it to the point where domestic savings start going up, interest rate for the domestic investment environment then benefits from that virtuous cycle. You talked about access to uh, reproductive interventions like contraception, also education, which takes us to where we started this conversation from, especially the education of women and girls, generally. I was taking a look at David Le Bris recently where he was talking about equality between siblings and inequality between siblings and how it affects the overall capital formation, whether it's physical capital or human capital in the society. So my question then is, do you see individual sort of personalized household decision-making affecting this more or it is sort of a national policy thing?Charlie;When it's something as important as family, you know, the individual decisions matter a huge amount. And as I said earlier, I've got no issues with anyone doing what they choose to do. But that big family story, I was just talking to a former minister, actually, of a... former finance minister of a country and he's got five kids, he's saying that he's been able to help fund them go to university, but he can't afford to help them buy a house cause he just hasn't got the cash. And I thought that was a really interesting example of even in a wealthier country, you know, it still matters how big that family is. You know, when I looked into this on how do you get the fertility rate down and there's been quite a lot written about it. I don't have a magic or a single answer, but the theories are first: girls if they're staying at school until they're 18, versus girls who leave school at 13. If you leave school at 13, perhaps you have your first kid at 14, maybe a second kid at 17, third kid at 20. But if you stay at school until you're 18, perhaps the first kid's at 20. So already you've reduced the fertility rate by two just by keeping girls at school. And the key figure, but just kind of remind, well tell people is the key figure is at about three to four kids per woman on average, the banking system has got deposits cash in it of about 35% of GDP, at four to five kids, it's around 30, 25 to 30. At five to six kids, which is where Nigeria is, it's about 20% of GDP. Um, so 20, 30, you know, these sort of levels. If you get to two to three kids though, if you get it below three kids, it more than doubles to about 60% of GDP.That's when banks suddenly have loads of cash. When banks have got loads of cash, there's loads of lending, suddenly access to finance isn't a problem anymore. So how do you get it below three kids? So you educate girls, there's an incentive when women are educated for them to work cause they can start to make decent money in a textile factory that you can't do unless you've got that literacy. Um, the government just telling people that low fertility is a good thing is shown to have some success. From Indonesia to India, these kinds of government campaigns suggesting lower fertility rates have made a difference. The third thing, which really surprised me cause it's such a strong correlation, is [to] stop kids [from] dying. And I was pretty upset, actually, to see the numbers where, for Nigeria, you've got a 10% chance, just over a 10% chance of dying before the age of five because you're born in Nigeria. And when I was comparing that to Covid - which the world spent, what, trillions trying to fight - with a fatality rate of about one or 2%, you think of those with more than a 10% chance of dying just before the age of five in Nigeria. Anyway, it's kind of shockingly high, but when you have such a high chance of losing a child, you tend to have more children and the correlation is really quite strong. So, if you can try and address infant, [and] young child mortality rates, which doesn't cost that much, you can see countries with Nigeria's wealth level that have a mortality rate of not over 10%, but five or even 3%. And usually, countries with such a low mortality rate then have a much lower fertility rate as well. So, people tend to have less kids when they are more confident that all their kids are going to survive childhood. So, some investment in basic healthcare for children, education of girls, contraception availability, yes it does help, and government information campaigns. You put those things together and then you get a country like Bangladesh. Bangladesh which had the same population as Nigeria about 15 years ago. But today Nigeria's got tens of millions more. But Bangladesh is growing as fast as India. Bangladesh's per capita GDP is over $2,000. And it keeps on growing at six, seven, 8% every year. Because they have on average two kids per woman, they've got savings, they don't have much foreign debt because they don't need to borrow dollars from abroad to fund their growth, because they've got their own savings, because the fertility rate is low. Muslim Bangladesh: tremendous success story over the last two or three decades.Tobi;You sort of made allowances for countries that can't quite get their savings right up to the levels where they can get the desired domestic savings and really positively affect their investment environment in a big way. And you talked about debt in the book, which would be familiar to anybody that's been in the new cycle about Nigeria currently, which is that government revenue has collapsed. Debt servicing is rapidly approaching a hundred percent of what the government can collect. And it's only a matter of time before we are talking about a debt crisis. But, like you said, a debt crisis is, like, unavoidable if you're trying to grow and you don't have to requisite domestic savings to sort of mitigate that. But this inevitably brings in the question of debt restructuring which, again, some would also argue does not help you grow. So, in terms of just the sheer macroeconomics management of this, how do you go about it?Charlie;It's tough. The book's arguing, obviously, that a whole chunk of this stuff is really long term. You got to get the education right. So, you've got to have enough teachers and that takes, well, at best Korea did it in 15, 20 years. But even if you've got the education, then you've got to get the fertility rate down. And that takes at best 10 years to get it down by about two kids per woman. Nigeria's at 5.3 kids or so at the moment. It needs to be below three to have the local savings. So, we're talking at least 15 years, even if every priority was made today to try and improve education, do all this reproductive education and so on. So, the governments then have the choice of what do you do? I mean, if you're going to wait 15 years, you can grow at 1% a year per person. But you'll find the population is getting pretty cross because you've got all these other countries in the world growing at three, four, 5% per person every year. You know, why is my country growing at one [percent]? So, the politicians then...[it] becomes so attractive to go out and borrow and, you know, every country, not every single one, but the vast majority of debt defaults in the second half of the 20th century were in high fertility countries. The fertility rate I think was around, on average, five - five kids per woman was the average fertility rate in countries that defaulted in the second half of the 20th century. Wherever they were in the world. A lot of them were in Latin America in the debt crisis of 1980s. So firstly, debt crises are really common in high fertility countries because governments say I want to speed up my growth and they borrow when the markets let them.And we've certainly seen that in Africa in the last 10 years too. And then they borrow too much and then they go into default and then they can lose maybe a decade. And that is what happened in Latin America in the 1980s. But the alternative is to only grow at 1% a year. And yeah, you can avoid debt default. I'm not saying every high fertility country defaults. I'm saying almost all the countries that have defaulted are high fertility. So, you can settle for the low growth but if you don't want to settle for the low growth, the debt becomes a very attractive way to try and get faster growth. But it causes a problem. I end up finding roughly two other ways that you can try.Tobi;Okay.Charlie;And grow faster. Is it okay to jump on to those?Tobi;Yeah, go ahead please.Charlie;Yeah. First is to try and bring in as much foreign investment as you can. Cause you haven't got enough local savings, you don't want to take on too much debt cause eventually you'll default. So, you can try and make yourself very attractive for foreign investors. Foreign direct investors. The only problem with that model is that those foreign direct investors do also want their cheap electricity and the good infrastructure that unfortunately high fertility countries haven't got the money to pay for. So, it's difficult to get in a lot of foreign direct investment. Foreign direct investment in China, I was just reading a really good book by David Lubin, who's the chief economist of Citi for Emerging Markets and he did a book called Dance of the Trillions. Highly recommend, it's brilliant on emerging markets. And he says FDI suddenly started in China in the 1990s. Now, I know why. My book is explaining why I think, which is you finally had a literate population, 70% literacy and you also had the low fertility rate. So, you had the high savings, you had the good infrastructure. But the FDI didn't come 10 years before into China. It only really picked up in the 1990s. So, the point of then is, I mean yeah, try and get some [FDI] if you can, but the last option that I can see other than to just, perhaps, try to go full Stalinist, kind of communist, take control of every part of the economy. But even that still education and low fertility really helps... Um, the last option which any country can do is to run a current account surplus, I think. Have a currency level that's so cheap that you are running a trade surplus. A current account surplus, which is obviously trade plus services and remittances and so on.If you've got a surplus on that current account, you are bringing dollars into the economy and those dollars help reduce interest rates. And Nigeria saw that actually in 2005, six, seven and eight when the oil price was booming. Nigeria had that flood of dollars coming into the economy. Interest rates were really low below inflation and investment was relatively cheap and easy to finance. Now it's a problem to manage when it's a commodity-driven boom because commodities then bust. So, all that flood of money that came in suddenly disappeared again, you know, once the oil price collapsed there wasn't that current account surplus anymore. But if you run a cheap currency policy to make sure you always run a current account surplus, then that helps give you that supply of savings that you can then use to start investing. So that seems to me one of the few ways that a low-income country that's got not enough local savings, doesn't want to wait forever until its fertility rate's down [and] low enough to build the domestic savings, this is one way that looks sustainable that can bring in some foreign cash to help support growth.Tobi;But one minor aside on FDI and you can really correct me here if I'm wrong, wouldn't that really be a bit unstable? Because if you have loads of FDI, if other indicators are really working in your favour and at the slightest hint of a crisis, all that money then flows out.Charlie;Yeah. Well, I'll just differentiate between foreign direct investment and foreign portfolio investment. And, again, David Lubin's book is very good on this because the Washington consensus, which is this set of policies that were drawn up by policy makers around 1989, 1990, it said countries should welcome foreign direct investment. Building factories that it's pretty hard to move out of the country, that that should be welcomed. But when the original guys who drew up the Washington Consensus wrote down the kind of 10 principles, they weren't that keen on foreign portfolio investment. This is the hot money that will include a lot of my investors who will come in and buy shares in companies in the Nigerian Stock Exchange and might come in and buy bonds. And I think it's fair to say that that money can leave in times of trouble and doesn't really support...isn't necessarily as supportive [of growth] and that money we count on the capital account because it is foreign capital.What I was talking about on the current account surplus was obviously the trade surplus, the remittances, the services and so on. So, I think it's more debatable. I think a number of countries have restricted foreign portfolio flows into equity market or the bond market. And if they've got other things going for them, like a low fertility rate, they can kind of get away with that. Um, what I'm highlighting is that for some countries they just don't have that choice. And when America was short of capital in the 19th century, it was British capital that went over and built their railways, that bought all the shares in their infrastructure companies. The Brits owned America for much of the 19th century and then the French actually owned most of Russia. Uh, the railways and the ports and some of the industry, the coal mines [were] very significantly owned by French investors, portfolio funds, and portfolio guys are there to make money as well. You know, they're there to make profit and if you're making good profit, five, 10% a year or whatever sitting in Nigerian equity market, people will stay, and it won't leave. They'll be happy to stay there for many, many years as people are and have been doing in India, actually, since India's education fertility and electricity numbers have all come together in the last 10 years in a really good way. Foreign portfolio guys are saying, "Hey, we wanna put our money into the Indian stock market too." And Indian shares are pretty expensive right now because of that. But the money doesn't want to leave. It'll leave when policy mistakes are made but fundamentally doesn't want to leave. However, I don't deny that there is a reasonable argument you can make to say we're going to choose foreign direct investment, we're going to be more restrictive on foreign portfolio investment. Because that can be more volatile. It can leave quicker. And I wouldn't argue with that. Well, I mean we could debate it, but I think it's harder to prove that you must have foreign portfolio investments to thrive. I think the current account surplus is a better policy choice because it's in your control. Foreign portfolio investors and what they do, that's not in your control.Tobi;One question that stayed with me throughout your book, which is a bit silent in the book itself, maybe it's implied, you can tell me, is that it's really difficult to find a country at any particular point where all these three factors align at the same time. Where you have the requisite adult literacy rate, electricity and fertility, they rarely align at the same point in time in the history of any one country. Because your book did not really distinguish between any particular political preference or institutional arrangements, which I like that, but what institutional arrangement favours the consistency for all these factors to sort of come together, uh, in the economic history basically of a country. Because we know that political leaders tend to favour what benefits their ambition at any particular point in time, you know? And a lot of these things are investments that do pay off in the long run, you know? Like we talked about on savings, a lot of political leaders would want to borrow a lot of money and then leave the debt crisis to the next administration.Charlie;Yeah. Yeah. Happens a lot.Tobi;Yeah. You know, and so many other things, whether you are investing in electricity or education or whatever, they don't really want to do the hard work. They want to do the easy stuff and just leave it to the next guy.So, what institutional arrangements have you found in your observation and study of this that favours the patient consistent build-up to the alignment of these three factors?Charlie;I think it's really, um, it's kind of interesting actually because in each chapter I try and say which countries are at the right place for industrialization, education, which countries are at the right place for electricity, and which countries are at the right place for fertility. Perhaps I didn't properly bring that together in one chapter at the end to say, "so, who's the fast growth story?" But right now, the countries that have brought them together are Vietnam, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and I think those five countries, Morocco actually six, um, those six countries should be the countries that will show the really good growth for the next 30 to 40 years. Um it's going to be great. And I'm then trying to highlight who's closest to joining them on a 10 year view. Um, Pakistan and Egypt both got big debt problems right now, but five to 10 years they could be joining that group as well and Ghana and actually Kenya and I would argue southern Nigeria could be, could be there in the 2030s.Um, so I am trying to say when they come together. The question you are asking, though, about institutions or perhaps leadership and so on, I think is a really important one because I guess this book in lots of ways is an argument against Why Nations Fail, which was a really interesting book; and [it] said it is all about institutions and the right institutions and that's why if you walk a kilometre across the US border into Mexico, things are run so very differently. It's got to be the institutions, that book argues, that makes the difference between a country succeeding or not. And what I'm arguing is that I don't think that's true. I think you appear to have the good institutions when everything else is running well and you appear to have the terrible institutions when you don't have the education or you don't have the electricity or you don't have the low fertility or worst of all, you haven't got any of them.So, a country that hasn't got any of them, like Niger, Chad, Somalia, you know, these are countries in a terrible place. But I'm saying that they can't have good institutions cause there's no money in the economy, there are not enough educated people in the economy. There's just no way that you're going to get a good setup in those countries. And actually, even at the beginning when, at the first 10 years or so, when you've got these things all coming together, you still don't think the institutions are good. You know, you go to India today, people don't think, "wow, this is a brilliantly run civil service. It's so uncorrupt[ed]." Such wonderful institutions everywhere. They don't say that. They don't say that about Philippines' Duterte, the president who's been just recently retired, by people who were worried the institutions found it difficult to control his populism. And yet Philippines boomed under Duterte, and India's boomed under Modi and countries like Korea boomed even with a level of corruption that means in the last 10 years we've seen four presidents go to jail for corruption.Um, so I argue that the better institutions come afterwards and that's why four presidents have gone to jail in Korea because they're now getting the institutions better. And I read a really good book about why democracies die by some American academics about three or four years ago now. I recommend it. And they pointed out that Latin America, across Latin America, they just copied the American institutions. They said, look, what's working in the Americas is North America. It's United States, they've got it right. Let's copy their institutions, we'll put them into my country, be it Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, whoever. And then they discovered that actually if the human capital is not as advanced, people will undermine the institutions. And you arguably saw Trump try it in the United States itself, but the human capital and the rest of the place was good enough to stop him from going too far.This is all debatable stuff, but you know, this is... So, I think the institutions do work when everything else has been working for some time and before then it's very hard to argue that the institutions work or can make a huge difference. I think the fundamental economic reality of are you growing at 1% a year or three to 5% a year per capita? That isn't about the institutions. Having said all of that? I think there's no doubt that you can have, if you're lucky, very lucky, really good leadership. A leader like Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, who has got vision, understands or is lucky, but he prioritized education and all the rest, who gets it right and takes the country onto a new path. When I think of some of the most obvious successes, a lot of them are small Singapore, Hong Kong, even Taiwan really.And maybe it's just tougher to do it in a country the size of Nigeria with over 200 million people or, or uh, India with over a billion, which is why it took India so long or Brazil. But I remember even the French president, Charles de Gaulle, I think in the sixties or seventies said, "how is it possible to govern a country with 350 types of cheese?".Um, and in India you'd say, "how can you govern a country of over a billion people with that many different dialects, different customs, different local cultures?" Um, and it is hard, but once you get these fundamentals of education, electricity and fertility right, suddenly, it looks like you can govern well. So, I want to think there is a role for good leadership, um, and it can make a difference and it does help. I just think history's telling us over the last 300 years that we can't count on luck and that lucky guy who happens to be the right leader to come in, sometimes woman who can come in, and push reform in the right way. What we can count on is that if you get the education, electricity and fertility numbers right, you will get out of poverty, you will get better off and your kids will have a much, much better future and your grandchildren even more so.So, I think that's probably one area [where] my book differs from many in the last 10, 15 years is saying, "I don't think it is so much about the things that we all like to pay attention to [like] who's going to win the next election and what are their different policies going to be?" And you know, most of the time I'm arguing it doesn't really make as much difference as we'd like to think.Tobi;Now, another point that came in the later chapters in the book, which I found interesting, and which is quite also a bit of a political issue right now, surrounds migration. Uh, a lot of Nigerians are leaving, I mean it's become even a social media trend and meme - "who is...Charlie;The Japa trend.Tobi;Who is leaving next, uh, yeah, yeah, Japa. So, like, who is leaving next, you know? Right. But you argued in the book that as countries grow richer, there will be more migration not less because what you often hear is that the reason why people are living is because the country is so bad and they're looking for a way to make better lives for themselves, which is true anyway. So, and that the way to really stop this migration wave is if you can improve the domestic economy and then suddenly you see a drop, but you are saying no, um, we are actually going to see more migration as countries grow richer. Now, how do you suppose that this can be resolved with the current, should I say, political environment in Europe and to some extent in America that is increasingly seeing migration from poorer countries as a problem, right? Is it a case of as countries grow richer, then the migration demographic just, sort of, changes to more educated people leaving and less tension and political rancour about migration?Charlie;Um, I doubt, I mean, I doubt that these political problems about immigration in Europe and The States are going to disappear. Cause we've seen election results just in the last two, three weeks in Italy with the far right becoming dominant, in Sweden as well. Where they took in a huge amount of, I think, it was Syrian refugees and before that Somalian refugees. Um, and you're trying to integrate people coming from a country with very low adult literacy into, particularly in Somalia's case, into a country like Sweden, which had a hundred percent, nearly a hundred percent adult literacy already by 1900. That's an integration process that takes generations. As America's still struggling 150 years after civil war, still struggling to manage integration. So, I think that political problem is going to carry on, but it is going to get more acute for Europe, um, and eventually United States because Europe is this aging old continent that hasn't got enough people.I was in Germany two weeks ago and there, there was a surprising number of industrialists saying "we must have a much more open border situation." I said, well, you know, that'll be really interesting to see if you do that because the backlash that we're seeing elsewhere says there is a limit to what countries politics seem ready to accept. And, I think, I even think the Brexit vote was about that. It was about the East European migration into the UK, which had the most open approach to east European countries from Poland and Hungary and Czech coming to the UK. Every other country in Europe kept in a border, well, restrictions, but the UK didn't. And I think that backfired on the UK when it had a Brexit vote that said, "oh, we have too many Polish people eating sausage in our supermarkets. And I, I, yeah, I mean really people cared.I don't understand it. I love the variety obviously, but while I don't understand, while I don't feel the same, [some] people do. So, I think that's the political problem. And even educated people who are needed by the economy might find it hard to integrate, say, beyond the bigger urban centres. I was really shocked when I was writing the book and I was looking at what happens when you've got an educated population but a high fertility rate. What happens across history is people leave. Cause there aren't enough jobs at home. Cause the fertility rate's so high, there's thousands, millions of people coming into the workforce. The savings aren't there to help create the jobs. So, they leave and it's the Philippines, you know, in the 20th century, it's Pakistanis now, where a number of people are well educated, not everyone sadly. But 150 years ago, it was Ireland, and it was Norway, and they were sending their excess population to America, and it caused huge controversy.There was, you know, rioting between, kind of, the Italian immigrants and the Irish immigrants in New York. T

From navigating war zones to negotiating with affiliates of terrorist organizations, Emily Hikade lived for the thrill of working as a CIA officer. But a near death experience at work made her realize: it was time to try a different kind of adventure. While in East Africa, Emily worked nights to start her luxury sleepwear brand, Petite Plume. Today, Emily shares how working in diplomacy prepared her for the challenges of being a founder and CEO. In this episode, Emily Hikade shares: Why she knew she'd have an international career from an early age The moment she started feeling vulnerable in her CIA career  What a near-death experience put into perspective for her How she started her business while working full-time and being a mom of three  Advice on how to know which investors are worth working with 

Laura Ash is a wellness business leader, Clinical Herbalist, feminist, mother, culture advocate, and social entrepreneur.Laura began her herbal medicine journey in 2000, and has never looked back. Laura became a clinical herbalist in 2005, studying with medical herbalists and folk healers. After living overseas in the UK and East Africa, Laura has felt a sacred obligation to support Indigenous People in their health sovereignty, and in 2011 she started a nonprofit called Herbal Anthropology Project which has protected Maasai Traditional Medicine in Tanzania through the framework of the Traditional Knowledge Division of the World Intellectual Property Organization. In 2015, Laura acquired The Scarlet Sage Herb Co. in San Francisco, built its online presence, and in 2018 launched The Scarlet Sage School of Traditional Healing Arts, while keeping it profitable and community-centered. Laura founded Land of Verse, an online wellness education marketplace in 2021 to bring trusted voices of the healing arts into the forefront. As a Masterclass for healers, these scalable classes are poised to bring these vetted voices to the masses, engaging people of all levels to experience the power of ancestral remembering. Laura's professional specialties and passions are helping build profitable & scalable female-owned health and wellness companies, educating the world about holistic wellbeing, herbal medicine product discovery and branding, supporting appropriate cross-cultural relationships, and achieving a triple-bottom-line while having fun.

“Where are you from?” is a question that so many of us who don't fit the mold are met with in a white-centric society. But what if you are from, influenced and impacted by so many people, places and cultures around the world? In this episode, Lilly Bekele-Piper talks about her experiences of being born in Ethiopia, immigrating at a young age to the US and then in her adulthood moving back to East Africa to plant her roots while also growing her global presence through her work with the US Government and in her own passion project of amplifying the stories of folks on the African continent and the diaspora through her podcast Selam and Hello. In this episode, she shares wisdom about the importance of viewing the world through a lens of humanity, connection and critical thinking.   For show notes and more info, visit nikkiinnocent.com/podcast

A conversation with Sven Verwiel of ForestFoods, a Kenyan based premium produce brand, about the potential of syntropic agroforestry in Kenya, and what we can learn from the over 40 years of experience in Brazil and what is needed to apply it at scale in the local East African context as well as why is the African continent the crucial and most interesting place to apply regenerative practises.---------------------------------------------------Join our Gumroad community, discover the tiers and benefits on www.gumroad.com/investinginregenag. Support our work:Share itGive a 5-star ratingBuy us a coffee… or a meal! www.Ko-fi.com/regenerativeagriculture----------------------------------------------------More about this episode on https://investinginregenerativeagriculture.com/sven-verwiel.Find our video course on https://investinginregenerativeagriculture.com/course.----------------------------------------------------The above references an opinion and is for information and educational purposes only. It is not intended to be investment advice. Seek a duly licensed professional for investment advice. Support the showFeedback, ideas, suggestions? - Twitter @KoenvanSeijen - Get in touch www.investinginregenerativeagriculture.comJoin our newsletter on www.eepurl.com/cxU33P! Support the showThanks for listening and sharing!

We're going to look at a few examples of tigger happy pilots and missile operators, starting with the 5th April 1948 Gatow Air Disaster over Berlin as the Cold War ramped up after the Second World War.   A British European Airways  Vickers VC.1B Viking airliner crashed near RAF Gatow air base, after a Soviet Air Force Yakovlev Yak-3 fighter aircraft flew into it from below.   All ten passengers and four crew on board the Viking were killed, as was the Soviet pilot. This incident is a warning to aviators in the contemporary world, witness the tension between Chinese and Taiwan, North and South Korea, near-misses above the Baltic, and less reported but as dangerous, incidents across the middle East.   First, 1948.   The Gatow Air Disaster was a mid-air collision that sparked an international incident between the USA, Britain and Russia – leading to heightened tensions and which escalated into what we know as the Berlin Blockade. That was a rather clumsy attempt by Joseph Stalin to force Europe to back down about the Marshall plan. So let's take a look at some other examples of the military behaving badly.   On July 27, 1955, an El Al flight from Vienna Austria to Tel Aviv Israel blundered into Bulgarian airspace and was shot down by two MiG fighters.   All 58 people on board were killed. After initially denying involvement, Bulgaria admitted to having downed the aircraft. Despite occurring during a low point in relations between the Soviet bloc and the US and its allies, international fallout was minimal. Moving east, on July 23, 1954, mainland China's People's Liberation Army fighters shot down a Cathay Pacific Airways CA 54 Skymaster.   The plane was flying from Bangkok to Hong Kong when it was hit - 10 out of the 19 passengers and crew died. In apologizing for the attack to Britain days later, the Chinese government claimed they had thought the plane was a military aircraft from Taiwan which they presumed was on an  attack mission against Hainan Island.   Trouble spots include the Qatar and its neighbours, Turkey, North Korea, parts of East Africa, Yemen, China and Taiwan. That's quite a list.

Dr. Sheikh Faiyaz Jaffer is the Research Scholar for the Islamic Center at New York University and an Associate Chaplain for the Center of Global & Spiritual Life at NYU.  In addition, he is currently a doctoral candidate at NYU Steinhardt's School of Education. Sheikh Faiyaz attained an MA degree in Islamic Studies (UK), with a concentration on early Islamic history, after his undergraduate degree from SUNY Stony Brook University in Political Science and Religious Studies.  He has had his research published by academic journals. In pursuing the classical course of Islamic education, Faiyaz studied in the Seminary of Karbala, Iraq, one of the most prominent centers for Islamic learning. As a faith leader and social activist, Faiyaz Jaffer has lectured at various universities, seminars, and workshops across the United States, Canada, Europe, East Africa, and the Middle East. Due to the political and social climate, he has been making strides in the greater New York area by taking part in a number of interfaith seminars and discussions in the aspiration of increasing dialogue with various faith leaders. His outreach efforts have allowed him to be featured in some of the country's most prominent media outlets. As a highly sought-after lecturer and religious leader, Faiyaz regularly leads prayer services and delivers sermons across North America.

M-Cultivo was born out of David Paparelli's Executive Masters at the London School of Economics, focused in Social Business and Entrepreneurship. Throughout his career, David has built access to market solutions for developing world agricultural producers. He spent 7 years growing Thrive Farmers International, a volume direct-trade specialty coffee importer in the US. Before that, he worked with nonprofits in East Africa and Central America on several economic development initiatives. He has always had a passion for empowering next-generation producers with practical solutions. Nathan sits down with David to discuss the market inequities around farming in the coffee supply chain and M-Cultivo's belief that they can change the entire coffee industry for the better, particularly the lives of the producers and their communities.   RESOURCES RELATED TO THIS EPISODE  www.m-cultivo.com https://www.linkedin.com/company/m-cultivo/ Instagram @mcultivo.coffee   CREDITS Theme Music

M-Cultivo was born out of David Paparelli's Executive Masters at the London School of Economics, focused in Social Business and Entrepreneurship. Throughout his career, David has built access to market solutions for developing world agricultural producers. He spent 7 years growing Thrive Farmers International, a volume direct-trade specialty coffee importer in the US. Before that, he worked with nonprofits in East Africa and Central America on several economic development initiatives. He has always had a passion for empowering next-generation producers with practical solutions. Nathan sits down with David to discuss the market inequities around farming in the coffee supply chain and M-Cultivo's belief that they can change the entire coffee industry for the better, particularly the lives of the producers and their communities.   RESOURCES RELATED TO THIS EPISODE  www.m-cultivo.com https://www.linkedin.com/company/m-cultivo/ Instagram @mcultivo.coffee   CREDITS Theme Music

An episode of Italy's decline as an imperial power in East Africa.- Credits : “Your Intro” by Audionautix (http://audionautix.com/) courtesy of Creative Commons (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) - "La Storia" by Francesco De Gregori, 1985

On this episode, Jason V. sits down with Elizabeth Byler, founder of Eden Environments. Listen as Elizabeth talks about the culture shock of moving to the U.S. from East Africa, their inspiration to start their own business, and the “invisible” world of size inclusive and trauma informed interior design. Local Color is hosted and produced by Jason V. and is distributed by Your Public Studios.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today Ashley welcomes Nicole Trunfio for a Bizzimumzi chat.        Nicole is an Aussie gal who made her way to America gracing the covers of various fashion magazines such as Elle, Vogue, Harpers Bazaar and so many more. Nicole is the founder & CEO of Bumpsuit  A  maternity brand that is redefining pregnancy style. BUMPSUIT is an essential layer for pregnancy and beyond, changing the landscape of maternity wear as we know it. Created to empower women to feel chic and supported, and be a sustainable option during a time of transition. BUMPSUIT can be worn,pre,during,and post-pregnancy. The material gently stretches with the body as it moves through all stages of womanhood, making it the perfect base layer and investment for the future.        In this Bizzimumzi chat they discuss:       - Breaking away from the modeling world       - Making America home       - Creating a blended family and what highs and lows it can bring       - Creating Bumpsuit       - Inspiration to have it all       The Bizzimumzi Podcast is brought to you by coffee-infused host Ashley Verma. This show is created to share all the ups, downs and all arounds of the wild world of parenting. Each week Ashley will be joined by a fellow inspiring, thriving and surviving Bizzimumzi – who will share their own journey. This podcast is your weekly opportunity to take a deep breath as we try to navigate the wild world of parenting; think of this podcast as the safe space where we are not too hard on ourselves, we share our humility and relish in overcoming the inevitable failures that simply happen. This is a podcast for those who are unapologetically At Its Best, even when 'At its Best' means the dishes aren't done, there is crayon on the walls and your hair hasn't been washed in forever. We Are Bizzimumzi.  We love hearing from you! Get in touch with any topic suggestions, questions and feedback at: info@bizzimumzi.com  

Battling cancer takes place in many parts of the world and our next guest has led initiatives to do just that. In Part One of this Oncology, Etc. Podcast episode, Dr. Richard Sullivan, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King's College London, shares with us his intriguing life trajectory, encompassing a childhood in various parts of the world, aspirations for a veterinary career that turned to basic science, medicine, health policy (4:27), and even a long-term stint with the British Army Intelligence (12:22). Dr. Sullivan, who served as Director of Cancer Research UK for nearly a decade also discusses traits he looks for in a cancer investigator (19:21), and how to be happy (21:16)! Guest Disclosures Dr. Richard Sullivan: Honoraria – Pfizer; Consulting or Advisory Role – Pfizer Dr. David Johnson: Consulting or Advisory Role – Merck, Pfizer, Aileron Therapeutics, Boston University Dr. Patrick Loehrer: Research Funding – Novartis, Lilly Foundation, Taiho Pharmaceutical If you liked this episode, please follow. To explore other episodes, as well as courses visit https://education.asco.org. Contact us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Pat Loehrer: Hi, I'm Pat Loehrer. I'm director of the Center of Global Oncology and Health Equity at Indiana University Cancer Center.   Dave Johnson: And I'm Dave Johnson at UT Southwestern in Dallas, Texas.   Pat Loehrer: And this is Oncology, Etc. Dave, what book have you read this last month?   Dave Johnson: I have one I wanted to recommend to you. It's very interesting. It's by Steven Johnson, not of the syndrome fame. It's entitled Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer. You may have heard of this because PBS made a special documentary about this particular book. But in it, Johnson talks about the remarkable increase in human lifespan, especially over the 20th century, and the various factors that contributed to increased years of life from on average in the United States of about 48-49 in 1900 to just about 80 in the year 2000. So that beats anything in the history of mankind before.   And he has a chapter about each of the factors that contribute to this, and some of which I think we all recognize. Things like antibiotics playing a role, but some of the things that I hadn't thought about were improved drug regulation and the development of randomized controlled trials, which all of us have participated in. How important that is.   He also talked about, at least in the United States, the importance of automotive safety. And I'm sure some of us on this podcast are old enough to remember cars that did not have safety belts and certainly not other safety maneuvers that have really improved lifespan in that regard. So I found it a fascinating book. I think our listeners who are interested in medical history would also enjoy this text.   Pat Loehrer: Did he mention this podcast?   Dave Johnson: No, actually it wasn't mentioned, and I thought that was a tremendous oversight. So, I've sent him a letter and recommended that he add it.   Pat Loehrer: We may not live longer, but it just seems like we're living longer. When you listen to this podcast, time stands still.   Pat Loehrer: Well, it's my real great pleasure to introduce our interviewee today, Richard Sullivan. I met Richard several years ago through the late Professor Peter Boyle in Leon, and it's one of the greatest highlights of my life to be able to know Richard.   Professor Richard Sullivan's Research Group studies health systems and particularly chronic disease policy and the impact of conflict on health. He's a professor of cancer and Global Health at King's College in London and director of the Institute of Cancer Policy and Co-director of Conflict and Health Research Group. As well as holding a number of visiting chairs, Richard is an NCD advisor to the WHO, a civil military advisor to the Save the Children Foundation, and a member of the National Cancer Grid of India. His research focuses on global cancer policy and planning and health system strengthening, particularly in conflict ecosystems. He's principal investigative research programs ranging from automated radiotherapy planning for low resource settings to the use of augmented or virtual reality for cancer surgery through the political economy to build affordable equitable cancer control plans around the world.   Richard has led more Lancet Oncology commissions than anyone else. In fact, Lancet is talking about calling it the Sullivan Commissions. He's led five Lancet Oncology commissions and worked on four others. He's currently co-leading the Lancet Oncology Commission on the Future of Cancer Research in Europe and Cancer Care and Conflict in the conflict systems. His research teams have had major programs in capacity building in conflict regions across the Middle East and North Africa. He's done studies on the basic packages of health services in Afghanistan and worked in Pakistan, Syria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. He's been a member of the British Army, intelligence and security, and in that capacity he's worked many years in biosecurity and counterterrorism issues. I think in some ways, this is the most interesting man in the world, and it's our pleasure today to have Richard join us. Richard, thank you for coming.   Richard Sullivan: Pat, Dave, you're really too kind. Marvelous to be with you. Thank you for the invitation.   Pat Loehrer: Can you tell us a little about your upbringing and early life before you became Dr. James Bond?   Richard Sullivan: I'm not sure that's anywhere close to the truth, sadly. But, yeah, I have had a very interesting, eclectic life. I was born in Aden just on the cusp of where the British Aden Protectorate met a country which actually no longer exists, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. Because after the British left Aden, essentially the East Germans, and what was then the Soviet Union took over southern Yemen. So I was born in a very unusual part of the world, which sadly, since then has just deteriorated. I spent many years of my life with my parents, who were in the diplomatic service and doing other things, wandering around the globe, mainly in the Middle East and East Africa. We spent quite a lot of time, strangely enough, we washed up on the shores in the USA once as well. Dayton, Ohio, and eventually-   Pat Loehrer:  Not to interrupt you, Richard, there are no shores in Dayton, Ohio. So just correct you there.   Richard Sullivan: That is so true. My memory - cornfields everywhere. I had a wonderful dog then, that's how I remember it so well. And I didn't really come back to the UK until, oh, gosh, I was nearly 10-11 years old. So, coming back to the UK was actually a bit of a culture shock for me. And then relatively classical in terms of the UK, sort of minor public school and then into medical school. In the old days when it was in the 80's. I had a fabulous childhood, going all over the place, seeing lots of things, being exposed to lots of different cultures. I think it remained with me all my life. I never really feel a foreigner in a foreign land. That's nice. That's really unique and it's been marvelous being able to tie in the passion for global health with my upbringing as well. So, yeah, I had a wonderful childhood.   Dave Johnson: Would you mind expanding on your medical training, Richard? Tell us a little bit about that.   Richard Sullivan: Yeah, so when I, when I went to medical school in the UK, we were still running the old system. And by the old system, I mean, you know, these small medical schools with entries of, you know, 70, 80 individuals, particularly in London, you had that St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, which is where I went, Charing Cross, Guy's, St. Thomas', and they were all individual medical schools. Now, most of these now have merged together into these super medical schools. But certainly when I went to medical school, I'll be absolutely honest with you, I wanted to be a vet to begin with, but actually discovered I wasn't bright enough to be a vet. It was harder to become a vet than it was to become a doctor. In my day going into medicine, and people listening to this, or some people who understand the A level system in the UK will recognize if you're offered a BCD, that's quite low grades to get into medical school. So I went to Mary's, to be absolutely honest with you, because I heard that they took people that played rugby, and I came from a rugby-playing school. And sure enough, 90% of the interview was based on my rugby prowess, and that was St. Mary's Hospital Medical School. So it was wonderful.   And we'd already had people going there who were big rugby players. And again, it was, I remember thinking to myself, am I making the right decision here? But it was interesting, as soon as I went into medical school, I realized that was the life for me. I had done myself a favor by not going into veterinary science, which I would have been awful at. We had six years of very, very intensive pre-medicine, the classical medical rotations, and then that movement into the old schools of pre registration house officers, registrar jobs. We were quite an early stage. I kind of slightly went off-piste and started doing more academic work. Interestingly, most of my academic early days academic work was not in health policy and research. It was actually in very hard core cell signaling. So my doctorate was in biochemistry, and we worked on small GTPases, calcium-sensing proteins.   There were some really extraordinary heady days, and I'm talking here about the early nineties and the mid-nineties of tremendous discovery, real innovation. I was at UCL at the time, but mixing and matching that up with a sort of surgical training, and again, surgical training in those days was pretty classical. You went into your general surgery, then sort of specialized. It was really, really interesting but it was full on. I mean, you spent your entire life working. Morning to night so these were the days of 100 hours week rotations. You were doing one in twos, one in threes. That's every other night and every other weekend on call. It was incredibly intense, but there was a lot more diversity and plasticity in those days. You could dip in and out of medicine because of the way you were chosen and how you were recruited. So it suited my personality because I liked moving around and doing different things and that sort of took me through, really until the late 1990s.   Pat Loehrer: You became a urologist, right?   Richard Sullivan: That's right. Exactly. So I trained up until the late 1990s, it was all pretty standard, I would say. And then I decided I was bored and moved into the pharmaceutical industry and I went to work in for Merck Damstadt at the time, which was relatively small. I was going to say family owned, but it was quite family-owned pharmaceutical company that was just moving into oncology. And because I'd done the background in cell signaling and cell signaling was really the backbone of the new era of targeted therapies, this seemed like a great move. To be absolutely blunt with you, I didn't last very long, less than a couple of years, I think, mainly because I just found the whole environment way too constraining. But what it did provide me with was a springboard to meet the wonderful late Gordon McVie, who I met at a conference. And he said to me, ‘You're absolutely wasting your time and life by staying in the pharmaceutical industry. Why don't you come out, get an academic job at University College London and become my head of clinical programs?” - for what was then the Cancer Research Campaign. This Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund were the forerunners of Cancer Research UK. So, you know, this was an offer that was too good to be true.   So I jumped ship immediately, went back into academic life and joined CRC. And really the next ten years was this extraordinary blossoming of the merger of CRC with the Imperial College Research Fund, the creation of Cancer Research UK, and that was Paul Nurse, and obviously Gordon and me, bringing that all together. And it was the heady days of that resurgence of cancer, the importance of cancer care and research in the UK. And coupled with that, of course, it was the blossoming of my interest, really then into the global health aspects of cancer, which really, Gordon, people like you mentioned already, the late, wonderful Peter Boyle, all those individuals were already engaged in and they were the ones that really kind of catapulted me into a more international scene.   Dave Johnson: Did you know Dr. McVie before you met him at this conference, or was it just a chance encounter?   Richard Sullivan: No, he actually met me via John Mendelson, because John had picked up a paper I'd been writing on basically the very early versions of Rituximab that we were working on and we were looking for pharmacodynamic endpoints. And of course, one of the things I noticed with the patients is they were getting all these skin rashes on their faces, and I thought, that's terrific. Just seemed to be the skin rashes seemed to be together with those individuals that had better responses. And I remember writing this paper for Signal, which was a kind of relatively minor journal, and I think it was John Mendelson who picked it up and must have mentioned something to Gordon. Gordon hunted me out down at a particular conference, said, "How on earth do you know about this, that you're not anything more than a surgeon?" He was absolutely right about, goodness sake, what do you know about pharmacodynamic endpoints, and I kind of had to sort of confess that I've gone kind of slightly off-piste by doing biochemistry and cells signaling and working with these extraordinary people. And that's how I essentially met Gordon. He was very good for spotting slightly unusual, eclectic human beings.   Pat Loehrer: I'm very curious about the intersection of your work and how you got into the British Army and Intelligence with medicine and how that even may continue even today. So explain that story, that part of your life a little bit to us.   Richard Sullivan: Yeah, it was very early on, as I went into medical school, one of the key concerns was making money. I looked around for ways of doing something interesting to make money, and most of the jobs on offer were bar jobs, et cetera. Then I thought, what about the Territorial Army, which, in the early days of the 1980s, was, and still is, a very large component of the UK Armed Forces. So I actually joined the Royal Army Medical Corps, as you would expect for someone going into medicine. I thought, okay, I'll join the Royal Army Medical Corps, and I was a combat Medical Training Technician, et cetera. So I went along, signed up, and I think I was about three months into training when I was at a place called Kew Barracks and some chap came up to me and handed me a little bit of paper. It said "Intelligence Security Group" and gave a phone number. He said, "This is more your line of work. Why don't you give them a ring?"   It was interesting because, in those early days, they were looking for analysts who could work on lots of different areas. In those days, most of the work was domestic.. Of course, there was counterterrorism with Northern Ireland, but there was also the Soviet Union, and the fallout from the Warsaw Pact, so they were still actively recruiting into that area. There are lots of details I can't talk about, but it was relatively, to begin with, quite hard work and low level. It was a lot of learning foreign equipment recognition. It was what we consider to be standard combat intelligence. But the more time you spend in it, the more interesting it gets.   One of the areas they were looking to recruit into, which I didn't realize at the time but only later, was bioweapons and biosecurity. They needed people who understood biotechnology and the language of science, and who could be taught the language of infectious disease on top of that. That is quite a difficult combination to find. It's very easy to teach people trade craft and intelligence, it's very hard to teach them subject matter expertise. And they were really missing people who specialized in that area.   It was interesting because it was still a relatively open domain. There was still a lot of work going on in the counterterrorism front with biological weapons, and a lot around the Verification of the Biological Weapons and Toxin Convention. And it was an interesting, and I'd almost say parallel life. But your medical knowledge and the scientific knowledge I had already gained and was gaining was what was being looked for. So that was very early on and it has expanded over the years. More and more now we talk about health security and intelligence so that goes beyond what you would consider classic medical intelligence or Armed Forces - this is more about putting together the disciplines of intelligence with the securitized issues of, for example Ebola. That is a classic example. The big outbreaks in West Africa, the DRC, these are sort of the classic security intelligence issues - even COVID 19 for example - and mostly around the world, what we've seen is the intelligence apparatus taking front and center in that, whether you're looking at states like South Korea, et cetera. So I've moved more into that, and we do a lot of work and research into this as well. So we look at, particularly now, how to improve human intelligence in this area, the pros and cons of signal intelligence collection. And we go as far as to kind of ask sort of deep ethical and moral issues, for example, about how far should these sorts of apparatus of state be applied to public good issues like health. Because at the end of the day, when you're talking about the armed forces security sector, their primary job is for defense of the realm. So applying them in other areas obviously comes with a whole load of moral and ethical challenges. So, yes, it's been a fascinating journey, which, as I said, it extends all the way back to the late 1980s. It's been both complementary and different.   Dave Johnson: So, Richard, there's so many things in your resume that warrant exploration, but you served as Clinical Director of Cancer Research UK for nearly a decade. What was that experience like, and what accomplishment are you most proud of?   Richard Sullivan: It was an enormous privilege. In your life, you always look at some jobs and you think, “How lucky I was to be there at that time with those people.” I think, first of all, enormous respect for the people that ran both Cancer Research Campaign, Imperial Cancer Research Fund – I mean, Paul Nurse and Gordon McVeigh, Richard Treisman – I mean, some extraordinary people who were leading both of these charities. And so to be there at that moment when they both came together, but more importantly as well, they had this most amazing global network of literally the illuminati of cancer research, spanning from basic science all the way through to epidemiology, public health, health systems. And in those days, of course, those individuals would come on site visits to the UK to look at the different units and evaluate them. So you can imagine when you're bringing those sorts of individuals across, you get a chance to go out with them, go drinking, talk to them, learn about their research, and also learn about the extraordinary breadth of research that was there in the UK. So you're condensing almost a lifetime's worth of learning into a few years. It was an absolute privilege to have been able to serve the community like that.   What I'm most proud of? Gosh, I like to think I suspect that most proud of trying to help a lot of the fellows get through to where they were going to actually get the most out of their careers. When I look back, there are lots and lots of names of people who started at a very early stage with funding from Cancer Research Campaign or the Imperial College Research Fund, who are now very, very senior professors and global research leaders. And I like to think that we did a little bit to help them along that way and also help to support individual research programs actually reach their full potential. Because I think research management and planning is often overlooked. People think of this as very transactional – it's not transactional. It's an incredibly important, serious discipline. It requires very careful handling to get the very best out of your research ecosystem. You've really, really got to get under the skin and really have a clear view of how you're going to help people. So I think that's what I'm most proud of – is the individuals who made it all the way through and now these great leaders out there.   But it was also, let's be honest, it was halcyon days. Great innovations, great discoveries, new networks growing, incredible expansion of funding in the UK, in Europe, in the USA. They were very, very good days. And it was, as I said, it was a real privilege to be there almost at the center for nearly a decade.   Dave Johnson: Let me follow up on that, if I may, just for a moment. You have had such an incredible influence. What characteristics do you think are most desired in a cancer investigator? What sorts of things do you look for, especially when you're thinking about funding someone?   Richard Sullivan: Creativity. I think creativity is really important. We talk about the word innovation a lot, and it's an interesting engineering term, but creativity is that spark that you can see it in people, the way they talk about what they're doing. They have this really creative approach. And with that, I think you have to have the passion. Research careers are long and difficult, and I'd probably suggest there's probably more downs than there are ups, and you have to have that passion for it. And I think along with that passion is the belief in what you're doing – that first of all, you have that belief that actually drives you forward, that what you know you're doing is good work, and that you're really dedicated to it. But obviously, hand on heart, when you're looking at researchers, it's that passion and that creativity.   I think it's a brave person to judge how any person's career or program is going to go. I don't think any of us are prophets. Even in our own land. We might be able to see slightly into the future, but there are so many elements that make up  “success”. It's funny when I look back and I think those who've been successful, it's people who've also been generally happy in their lives. They've found their careers in whatever shape or form, fulfilling, and they've generally been happy human beings, and they've managed to create a life around research which has given them meaning.   Pat Loehrer: Richard, you have reinvented yourself a number of times – this transition of going from like a basic scientist, a surgeon, moving into public policy and global policy. Tell me a little bit about the journey that's been in terms of academics. How do you learn? What were the transition points in each of these things to get you now to be, as I mentioned before, kind of the key person for Lancet's commissions to somebody who was a rugby player?   Richard Sullivan: I suppose if you're being mean, you say, he clearly gets bored easily. But it's not that. Actually, I'm not very instrumental about life either. I mean, there are many people you will meet who have got their lives and strategies mapped out. They know they're going to do X next year, Y the following year. And for me, it's never been like that. For me, it's that excitement, that creativity of working on new and interesting things, but also knowing when you've run out of road in a particular area, where it no longer gets you out of bed in the morning, where you no longer feel happy, where you no longer feel you're contributing. All of us talking today have the great privilege of having choice about our lives, about what direction our lives should take. And it's not a privilege one should squander lightly because many people do not have choices about their lives. It's all about chance. And having that choice to be able to move into different areas is really important because I said you can stick in the same thing because you think you have to. And you can become an unhappy, miserable human being. And that makes you a miserable researcher to be around. It makes you a terrible doctor. Probably makes you a terrible person, actually, generally, if you're having a miserable life.   So finding new things, that really you're passionate about how you do it, there's no shortcut in this. It's hard work. Readily admit I went back to law school of economics, retaught myself lots of things. There are no shortcuts for. Deciding if you're going to a new area is learning, learning, practice, practice, practice, and just doing the hard work. I think that's an ethos that was probably drilled into us quite early anyway in medical school, because that's how you approach medicine. That's how you approach science when I was growing up. And it was that idea of humility that you can never have enough learning, you will always learn off other people. That's probably what drove me and how I've managed to change and as I say, who knows what the future is? I don't know. Maybe one day I'll think about doing a bit of poetry.   Dave Johnson: Your comments about happiness and work resonate with Pat and me. I think we both feel like humor is really important for happiness and career success. And, you know, Osler once said, “The master word of medicine is work.” You can't get around that. It is what it is. And I think you just reaffirmed that.   Well, this concludes part one of our interview with Richard Sullivan, professor of Cancer and Global Health at King's College, London and director of the King's Institute of Cancer Policy and co-director of the Conflict and Health Research Group. In the second part of this episode, Professor Sullivan will speak about the progress of global health, especially in conflict areas, and the need for young people to enter into the world of oncology and oncology research.   Thank you to all of our listeners for tuning into Oncology, Etc. This is an ASCO educational podcast where we will talk about just about anything and everything. So if you have an idea for a topic or a guest you would like us to interview, please email us at education@asco.org. Thank you again for listening.  Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education ASCO.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Dr. Sheikh Faiyaz Jaffer is the Research Scholar for the Islamic Center at New York University and an Associate Chaplain for the Center of Global & Spiritual Life at NYU.  In addition, he is currently a doctoral candidate at NYU Steinhardt's School of Education. Sheikh Faiyaz attained an MA degree in Islamic Studies (UK), with a concentration on early Islamic history, after his undergraduate degree from SUNY Stony Brook University in Political Science and Religious Studies.  He has had his research published by academic journals. In pursuing the classical course of Islamic education, Faiyaz studied in the Seminary of Karbala, Iraq, one of the most prominent centers for Islamic learning. As a faith leader and social activist, Faiyaz Jaffer has lectured at various universities, seminars, and workshops across the United States, Canada, Europe, East Africa, and the Middle East. Due to the political and social climate, he has been making strides in the greater New York area by taking part in a number of interfaith seminars and discussions in the aspiration of increasing dialogue with various faith leaders. His outreach efforts have allowed him to be featured in some of the country's most prominent media outlets. As a highly sought-after lecturer and religious leader, Faiyaz regularly leads prayer services and delivers sermons across North America.

Dr. Sheikh Faiyaz Jaffer is the Research Scholar for the Islamic Center at New York University and an Associate Chaplain for the Center of Global & Spiritual Life at NYU.  In addition, he is currently a doctoral candidate at NYU Steinhardt's School of Education. Sheikh Faiyaz attained an MA degree in Islamic Studies (UK), with a concentration on early Islamic history, after his undergraduate degree from SUNY Stony Brook University in Political Science and Religious Studies.  He has had his research published by academic journals. In pursuing the classical course of Islamic education, Faiyaz studied in the Seminary of Karbala, Iraq, one of the most prominent centers for Islamic learning. As a faith leader and social activist, Faiyaz Jaffer has lectured at various universities, seminars, and workshops across the United States, Canada, Europe, East Africa, and the Middle East. Due to the political and social climate, he has been making strides in the greater New York area by taking part in a number of interfaith seminars and discussions in the aspiration of increasing dialogue with various faith leaders. His outreach efforts have allowed him to be featured in some of the country's most prominent media outlets. As a highly sought-after lecturer and religious leader, Faiyaz regularly leads prayer services and delivers sermons across North America.

Simone Andersson is Chief Commercial Officer at WEEE Centre, a Kenyan social enterprise that's been expanding safe e-waste management and circular solutions across East Africa, since 2012. Simone's background is in communication and sustainability action around waste and water management, and before joining the WEEE Centre she was at RISE (Research Institutes of Sweden), where she led innovative developmental projects on resource efficiency, circular economy systems, traceability, precious materials and various solid and liquid wastes. Her mission is to create awareness about the possibilities and prosperity of Green Business and Clean Tech. The WEEE Centre focuses on people, planet and prosperity, in particular by helping young people improve their social and economic circumstances. It's aiming to expand the collection infrastructure to cover all Kenyan Counties and to increase local recycling by bringing more advanced technologies. It also wants to reach other African countries, starting with neighboring Uganda and Tanzania. By 2019, the WEEE Centre had recycled more than 10,000ntons of e-waste, serving over 8,000 clients across Africa, and creating hundreds of jobs. It became the first and only e-waste management organization to be ISO certified with multiple awards. WEEE Centre has the capacity to recycle all types of e-waste, and has trained many other African countries on safe e-waste recycling. We'll hear about the operational complexities, some of the collaborations and partnerships they've fostered to overcome the challenges of being a relatively small enterprise, and how they're trying to make sure they create value-adding circular flows, rather than focusing on recycling.

Show Notes  In this episode, Mimi and Kim discuss CBE's partnerships in East Africa with Deborah Asio. Deborah, as CBE's liaison and a partner herself, reveals how highlighting the women of Scripture as powerful examples inspires women and men in East Africa to champion equality and mutuality for the flourishing of all. This work takes on the practical challenges of women's economics and illiteracy that enables abuse in a patriarchal society, by providing menstruation kits to girls so they can attend school, and by training up male champions of women's equality.    Disclaimer  The opinions expressed in CBE's Mutuality Matters' podcast are those of its hosts or guests do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of CBE International or its members or chapters worldwide. The designations employed in this podcast and the presentation of content therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of CBE concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.    Bio  Deborah Asio is an organizational development professional with NGO experience who oversees CBE's Africa partner projects. Deborah represents CBE and actively looks for opportunities to expand CBE's social impact with new partners. Deborah holds workshops to train pastors, gives reproductive health talks to build girls' agency as made in God's image, provides Bible-based psychosocial support to women in refugee camps, and conducts male ally/champion classes so they can become Bible-inspired change agents to advocate with other men to end injustices for girls and women.    Other Reading   CBE's Still Side-by-Side, available in many languages Learn more about CBE's Partners in East Africa: Partnering in Africa - CBE International  Listen to “A Lie Long Planted: Unearthing the Deep Roots of Gender Based Injustice” by Medad Birungi  Listen to Mutuality Matters podcast interview with Emily Onyango to better understand the East African situation for girls and women.    Listen to Terran Williams on patriarchy in South Africa: (New Voices) How Complementarianism Just Makes No Sense with Terran Williams | Mutuality Matters (podbean.com) 

Dr. Sarah Longair unseats European powers' efforts to control the East African coast, through a Kiti Cha Enzi, or Swahili Chair of Power, produced in the 19th century. Intricately decorated with an ivory inlay, a large, wooden throne sits proudly - not in its place of production of Witu, Kenya, but the stores of the British Museum. Kiti cha enzi, or seats of power, were used as thrones by Swahili rulers from the 18th century. Their distinctive form incorporates myriad cultural influences, highlighting the vibrant pre-colonial trading history of the Swahili community, while their symbolic use speaks to shifting patterns of power on the African coast. Produced as Germany and Britain competed for colonial control on the East African coast, this chair is a material symbol of how a small Swahili community resisted European expansion. Its seizure from the Swahili Sultan Fumo Bakari, and subsequent relocation by Admiral Fremantle to the National Maritime Museum, and later British Museum, speaks to our current interests in the colonial origins of museum objects. But it also reveals the complex rivalries between Western imperial pofwers, and how East African leaders exercised their own agency by playing them against each other. PRESENTER: Dr. Sarah Longair, Senior Lecturer in the History of Empire at the University of Lincoln. ART: Kiti Cha Enzi (Swahili Chair of Power), East Africa (19th Century). IMAGE: 'Sketch of Kiti Cha Enzi of the Sultan of Witu, British Museum Af1992,05.1. Drawing: S Longair'. SOUNDS: Radi Cultural Group. PRODUCER: Jelena Sofronijevic. Follow EMPIRE LINES at: twitter.com/jelsofron/status/1306563558063271936 Support EMPIRE LINES on Patreon: patreon.com/empirelines

About Dr. Sheikh Faiyaz JafferDr. Sheikh Faiyaz Jaffer is the Research Scholar for the Islamic Center at New York University and an Associate Chaplain for the Center of Global & Spiritual Life at NYU.  In addition, he is currently a doctoral candidate at NYU Steinhardt's School of Education. Sheikh Faiyaz attained an MA degree in Islamic Studies (UK), with a concentration on early Islamic history, after his undergraduate degree from SUNY Stony Brook University in Political Science and Religious Studies.  He has had his research published by academic journals. In pursuing the classical course of Islamic education, Faiyaz studied in the Seminary of Karbala, Iraq, one of the most prominent centers for Islamic learning. As a faith leader and social activist, Faiyaz Jaffer has lectured at various universities, seminars, and workshops across the United States, Canada, Europe, East Africa, and the Middle East. Due to the political and social climate, he has been making strides in the greater New York area by taking part in a number of interfaith seminars and discussions in the aspiration of increasing dialogue with various faith leaders. His outreach efforts have allowed him to be featured in some of the country's most prominent media outlets. As a highly sought-after lecturer and religious leader, Faiyaz regularly leads prayer services and delivers sermons across North America.

A lot of shea butter, which can be found in moisturizers and chocolate, originates from West and East Africa. According to the Global Shea Alliance, shea exports from African countries have increased about 600 percent in the last 23 years. Most shea nut collectors are rural women. So, this should be great news for them. But because of the way the shea nut supply chain operates, most women are at the bottom of the power structure, oftentimes squeezed out by middle men. On today's episode of the Hidden Economics of Remarkable Women, reporter Nelly Kalu visits a Nigerian nonprofit called Initiative for Gender Empowerment & Creativity. They have innovated the shea nut business to enable women shea nut producers to earn more. Then, host Reena Ninan speaks with Sybil Chidiac, a senior program officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Chidiac focuses on women's economic empowerment initiatives in Africa and shares her thoughts on this program and others to Ninan. For transparency, it is worth mentioning that HERO is funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the last episode for 2022, Ivan Ojakol a Sports Lawyer, Partner at Matrix Advocates and Lecturer at the International University of East Africa discussed how one can build a sports law career as a Ugandan and African. This episode featured a conversion on how to get into sports practice, relevant sports laws, how are sports dispute resolved, how can sports event organizers make money eg FIFA World Cup, impact of hosting a sporting event, the interplay of intellectual property and sports, Sports business in the era of illegal streaming eg the DStv case, how the sports industry is dealing with counterfeited goods, digital assets in form of NFT, and going into the metaverse, Sports and audiovisual rights, Sports business in Africa, how can Africa position itself for business eg Tanzania increased its meat export to Qatar during the 1-month world cup, and sports trends in Africa  See the link below to listen in Anchor: https://anchor.fm/rita-chindah/episodes/Building-a-Career-as-a-Sports-Lawyer-in-Africa-e1srk3g Link to listen on Audiomack: https://audiomack.com/rss/ipseriesinfo/podcast.rss  You can subscribe to my newsletter via this link-  https://ipseries.substack.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ipseries_with_reedah Twitter: https://twitter.com/IPSERIES1 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/836484013662125/?ref=share Subscribe on Spotify:  https://open.spotify.com/show/1d6vuZteT368fBQiuC0aok #ipseries #podsinnaija #sportslaw #podcast #intellectualproperty #faqonintellectualproperty #qatar #qatar2022worldcup #qatarworldcup2022 #fifaworldcupqatar2022 #footballworldcup2022 #roadtoqatar2022 #intellectualproperty#podsinnaija #africanpodcast #sportsdispute  #ipr #intellectualpropertypodcast #nigerianpodcastnetwork  #africanpodcast  #nigerianpodcast #nigerianpodcastnetwork  #africanpodcast  #nigerianpodcast #nigerianpodcaster #podsinniaja #podcastinAfrica --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rita-chindah/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rita-chindah/support

To grow from a small island you need a dual aspect: looking inward, CIM has a relationship with about 60% of commercially active Mauritians; looking outward, CIM is expanding into East Africa and possibly beyond?You can read more about CIM's finance arm at https://cimfinance.mu/mu/en/ Or, if you'd rather visit them and the beautiful island of Mauritius in person, here's where you can start your planning https://www.mymauritius.travel/

Today Ashley welcome's her husband, Rikki Verma, onto the Bizzimumzi podcast.    Yes, we know, it's about damn time Rikki took to the microphone to share what life has been like as a first time Dad. Rikki and Ashley recall back to the day Adiya was born and Rikki quickly confesses he did look behind the curtain even though everyone told him not too. He is officially scared for life. They share their thoughts about tough times communicating and why its time to bring Un-Single/Single Mom to a close for season 1.     The Bizzimumzi Podcast is brought to you by coffee-infused host Ashley Verma. This show is created to share all the ups, downs and all arounds of being a mom, owning a successful business and truly managing being an un-single single mom, attempting to balance all aspects of family life! Each week Ashley will be joined by a fellow inspiring, thriving and surviving Bizzimumzi – who will share their own journey. This podcast is your weekly opportunity to take a deep breath as we try to navigate the wild world of parenting; think of this podcast as the safe space where we are not too hard on ourselves, we share our humility and relish in overcoming the inevitable failures that simply happen. This is a show for those Mom's that are not trying to be shiny and filtered. This is a podcast for those who are unapologetically, at their best and worst, Bizzimumzi's!   We love hearing from you! Get in touch with any topic suggestions, questions and feedback at: info@bizzimumzi.com  

In this conversation, I speak with prosocial entrepreneur, Rachel Aiden about what we know about the use of psychedelics on healing the impacts of trauma. We discuss what steps and precautions one should talk before embarking on the world of plant medicine, what one can expect if one decides to go on a journey with her company Synthesis and the roles of the guides, group work and integration in the process. Rachel Aiden is a prosocial entrepreneur with 20+ years of experience working on projects across the U.S., East Africa, and Europe. Currently, she's the CEO at Synthesis Institute, a legal psilocybin retreat and practitioner training center with locations in Amsterdam and Oregon. Rachel holds a B.A. in Transformative Education & Leadership, M.A. in Clinical Mental Health Counseling and Trauma-Informed Leadership, and is completing her Ph.D. in Integral/Transpersonal Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies, where her research focused on psilocybin-assisted treatment for PTSD and Complex Trauma. Find Rachel at https://www.synthesisretreat.com/ and on Synthesis on Instagram ----------------------------------------- Your support is deeply appreciated! Find me, Lara, on my Website / Instagram You can support this podcast with any level of donation here. Pre-order The Essential Guide to Trauma Sensitive Yoga: How to Create Safer Spaces for All Opening and Closing music: Other People's Photographs courtesy of Daniel Zaitchik. Follow Daniel on Spotify.

Guest: Robert Christian CW5 Robert Christian was raised in McAllen, Texas.  He reported to Basic Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina in 1996.  Attending Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at Fort Gordon, Georgia, he was assigned the MOS of 25U, Signal Support Systems Specialist. During his 10 years enlisted time, Rob served in the ranks of Private thru Sergeant First Class.   Rob holds a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology Management and is a graduate of the Army Warrant Officer Senior Service Education (WOSSE) course.  His combat deployments include Afghanistan, Iraq, and East Africa.  His awards and decorations include the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (1BOLC), the Meritorious Service Medal (2BOLC), the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal (1BOLC), the Army Achievement Medal (3BOLC), the Combat Action Badge, the Parachute Badge, and the Air Assault Badge. Rob has been married to his wife Leilani for 22 years.  They have 5 children ages 17-2.   If Robert could go back, what advice would he give himself to avoid some of life's pitfalls? Robert's words - “It ain't worth it.”   Excellent resource - Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices by Thomas Brooks   Have you seen another man who really lived out his faith in Christ - spent time in the Word, in prayer, speaking truth and fighting against sin in their own life?   You must understand this truth: you will reap what you sow. If you plant apple seeds, don't expect to eat oranges later in life. God's Word says this in Galatians 6:7-9: Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. What is it about those “middle-ages” from 40-50 years old - you are either going to make it or break it - what will be the difference in your journey? Consider the small “crack” in your windshield of life - if you don't address it early, if you leave it alone and just wish it away, that small crack will most likely spread across your life and cost you the integrity of your windshield, which is a metaphor for your life!   1 Peter 5:8-9 Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.   Man Alive: Transforming Your Seven Primal Needs into a Powerful Spiritual Life by Patrick Morley Robert - two things to address everyday - obedience and sacrifice. Robert - finish well. There are too many examples of guys who are taken out of the race of life and don't finish well - and how do you finish well…cling to Christ.   T4M guys - just a reminder that Training4Manhood is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) ministry and you can make donations either via Zelle (info@training4manhood.com) or by visiting the Training4Manhood website. Huge thank you to Jared Wood for allowing T4M to use his music in our intro and outro selections.

#HebrewIsraelite #zionistregime #kanyewest Email the podcast: rbcforum313@yahoo.com https://cash.app/$BlackConsciousnes Join us as we have a conversation about when a wealthy European smallhat, Baron Rothschild, sent a French small Jacques Faitlovitch into East Africa and created a Black Ethiopian Hebrew Israelite Community. According to Accidental Talmudist: Jacques Faitlovitch devoted his life to bringing the isolated Jews of Ethiopia into the larger Jewish community. Born into a religious family in Lodz, Poland in 1881, Jacques was always interested in Africa and the Far East. He attended the Sorbonne in Paris, where he studied at the School for Oriental Languages, becoming fluent in several Ethiopian dialects. Jacques' mentor was Prof. Joseph Halevy, the first European Jew to visit the remote community of Ethiopian Jews - known as the Beta Israel or Falasha - in 1869. The origin of the Ethiopian Jews is mysterious. Many experts believe they are descendants of the lost tribe of Dan. When discovered by Prof. Halevy in the 19th century, they were practicing an incomplete form of Judaism. They had the written Torah (the Five Books of Moses) and the Prophets, but did not have the Oral Torah (Talmud), an essential part of Judaism. They were not familiar with any post-Biblical holidays, such as Hanukkah and Purim. Jacques traveled to Ethiopia for the first time in 1904. He said in an interview published in Warsaw's Jewish newspaper, "They did not want to believe that I, too, am a Jew, and only after a while did I manage to prove to them that there are many more Jews in the world. Since then they have wanted to be closer to these Jews." When the interviewer asked if he thought his mission would succeed, Jacques said: "I am sure of it. So sure that I have decided to devote my life to this cause.” Jacques opened a school and synagogue in Addis Ababa to teach Hebrew, Judaism and Jewish history. He sent several young Ethiopians to study at the best universities in Europe, so they could come back to Ethiopia and share what they'd learned. Jacques spent the rest of his life traveling around the world, speaking to Jewish groups and communal institutions to raise money for Ethiopian Jews. He made eleven extended trips to Ethiopia. In 1947 he began to advocate for Ethiopian Jews to move to the newly created State of Israel. He felt that with so many Jews murdered in the Holocaust, it was vitally important to reach out to every Jew still alive, no matter how remote. During the final years of his life, Jacques lived in Tel Aviv, where he had a large collection of rare Ethiopian books and manuscripts. After his death at 74, his widow donated the house and its contents to Tel Aviv, and the house became a public library. In the 1970's, Ethiopian Jews began immigrating to Israel in large numbers. Escaping famine and oppression, many died making the perilous journey. In 1984-5, the Israeli government, assisted by the CIA, began Operation Moses, a secret mission to airlift Jews out of Ethiopia. 8000 Jews were rescued and brought to Israel. Several years later, in 1991, Operation Solomon rescued 14,500 over the course of 36 hours, on 41 flights. Today, over 120,000 Ethiopian Jews live in Israel. Only 7,000 remain in Ethiopia. Jacques Faitlovich's dream of bringing Ethiopian Jews to Israel has become a reality. So make sure you tap into this conversation and remember to like, share, and comment! Thanks! RBCF! Hashtags: #israelites #israel #hebrewisraelites #bible #israeli #tribes #iuic #tribesofisrael #truth #hebrew #israelite #judah #blacks #apttmh #yahawah #yahawashi #tribeofjudah #jerusalem #hebrews #hebrewisraelite #hispanics #jesus #god #israelinstagram #jews #nativeamericans #israeloftheday #yah #jewish #photo --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/realblackforum/message

227 - Fr. Seán ÓLaoire is a co-founder and the Spiritual Director of Companions on the Journey. He was born in Ireland and was ordained a Catholic priest in 1972. He spent 14 years living and working among the Kalenjin people of East Africa and came to the U.S. in 1987. Fr. Seán has a BSc degree in mathematics and a PhD in Transpersonal Psychology.Full topic discussions include:-Setting God free from our own shadow-Storytelling and the archived wisdom of culture-Developing a new cultural story rooted in mystical traditions-Are we engaged in a battle of good vs evil?-Transhumanism and the inversion of spiritual principles-The sin of refusing God within oneselfConnect with Fr. Seán ÓLaoire:WebsiteYouTubeSetting God FreeDonate to support this show!PayPal | VenmoPurchase a copy of The Mystical Collection: Poems on Love, Freedom, and Awakening.Book a Donation Based Tarot ReadingConnect with Evan:Subscribe on SubstackInstagramTwitterYoutubeStart Your Own PodcastThe Fifth Dimension ShopIf you like the show, please subscribe & leave us a Review :)Theme Music:Highland Song by Alexander Nakarada | https://www.serpentsoundstudios.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Support the show